| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2010 11:06:39 PM · #4751 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Which hand I favor has no effect on others whatsoever... |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
someone with a pathological compulsion to steal is not excused from the consequences of her actions merely because she does not choose to be like that... |
Hello straw man. |
You mean the left handed one? ;)
I've made my point. I can tell this is where I should exit the conversation with you. |
|
|
|
06/30/2010 11:07:04 PM · #4752 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't mean to inflame this conversation and should have just let it lie. The left-handed argument makes some sense. On the other hand, someone with a pathological compulsion to steal is not excused from the consequences of her actions merely because she does not choose to be like that. The stealing is still deemed wrong by society.
The commonality of both the left handed and the klepto examples is that the quality or activity makes sense as being right or wrong (or amoral) under a separate system and that is what should be discussed, not the fact the trait was genetically or environmentally acquired. Would being left-handed be any more or less moral if people chose to be left-handed? Whether a trait is genetically or environmentally determined only helps explain why the person does such and such, not whether it is moral or acceptable. |
That's fine, but you still cannot compare any genetically acquired trait with adultry, blasphemy, being a liar, or being pro-choice. It simply isn't the same thing and  Nullix has been here through that back and forth, so why is it being brought up in that typically inflammatory manner?
Another thing that is a legitimate concern is that when you put into place the social dictate of acceptance, or the lack of acceptance, of something that does no harm comes into play. When you use kleptomania, and pedophilia, as examples of an aberrant behavior, you are once again trying to impose your standards, and categorize homosexuality into something that is wrong even though socially, what two consenting adults do, by themselves, is of no consequence to anyone else. This is a major flaw in your argument. It's as bad as trying to claim the institution of marriage as your own, and then deciding after "stealing" the idea, that you'll define it to keep out others. It's neither your idea, nor right to decide that it is to be your way. You have every right to feel that way, but it doesn't hold up.
Once again, Nullix is talking out both sides of his mouth when he states that he's to love the sinner and hate the sin, then to speak of gays, and the rest of his little list in such a manner as to suggest that they are not suitable for the church, though he states that they will be "friendly to them", whatever that means. Somehow,I don't think his "friendly", and the outright statement of affirmation by 273 churches, in Pennsylvania and their congregations are remotely similar
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 11:19:30 PM · #4753 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
This thread should be renamed to Energizer Bunny. Because it just keeps going and going. |
I'm sure threads like this will continue until people stop trying to tell other people how to live.
And no, that doesn't include hiding myself so as to avoid 'trampling' the right's 'religious freedom' from acknowledging the existence of people different from them.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2010 11:24:16 PM · #4754 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
When you use kleptomania, and pedophilia, as examples of an aberrant behavior, you are once again trying to impose your standards, and categorize homosexuality into something that is wrong even though socially, what two consenting adults do, by themselves, is of no consequence to anyone else. This is a major flaw in your argument. |
Yep, that'd be the straw man fallacy: introduce an extra element (in this case a trait that cause harm to others) to create a weaker position that he can attack, thereby giving the illusion that he can dispute the original position. Rather than address the actual point when called out on the glaring fallacy, this is where he exits the conversation. :-/ |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 11:47:31 AM · #4755 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Go Republicans! Go go go! Rah rah rah!
Both Texas and Montana's official GOP platforms include criminalizing 'homosexual acts'. And Texas wants to make giving a marriage license to a gay couple a criminal offense! Even though they don't HAVE same sex marriage licenses in Texas! |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Ok, how about making homosexuality (acts, lol) illegal as an official plank in GOP platforms... nobody's bothered by this? |
Getting back the to what Mousie said.
I'm still debating (with my wife and myself) over Prop-8 and these other laws against gays. When a religious groups starts to legislate their views, it's all fine and dandy when you're part of that religious group (see 18th and 21st amendments). But the tide will some day turn. And then these laws can back-fire. France passed a law aimed at Muslims to restrict religious symbols (head scarves). It backfired and now all religious symbols are banned in France.
What happens when California elects the first Gay Governor and criminalize "heterosexual acts"?
I think it's odd making the act of granting a marriage license a crime. What are they going to do, start arresting the governors of states that marry gay couples? |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 01:00:29 PM · #4756 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
When you use kleptomania, and pedophilia, as examples of an aberrant behavior, you are once again trying to impose your standards, and categorize homosexuality into something that is wrong even though socially, what two consenting adults do, by themselves, is of no consequence to anyone else. This is a major flaw in your argument. |
Yep, that'd be the straw man fallacy: introduce an extra element (in this case a trait that cause harm to others) to create a weaker position that he can attack, thereby giving the illusion that he can dispute the original position. Rather than address the actual point when called out on the glaring fallacy, this is where he exits the conversation. :-/ |
For cripes sake. If someone makes this argument:
Behavior X is governed by genetics/environment, not choice.
Behaviors not chosen should be afforded moral immunity.
Therefore, behavior X should be afforded moral immunity.
If I can give an obvious example where this is shown not to be true then the argument falls apart at the very least as an imperative. I purposely pick obvious examples to allow people to understand. That doesn't make them de facto straw men. I'm not even declaring Behavior X to be moral/immoral, but only that the argument from lack of choice is not a sound argument (although one we see all the time in this particular debate). Jeb then (properly) switches to an argument of harm, which is sounder (although one can still disagree).
Can I just ask you straight up Shannon, do all behaviors that are genetically or environmentally determined deserve immunity from moral judgement? Answer me in a straightforward manner. Yes, always. No, never. or Maybe, sometimes. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 01:43:26 PM · #4757 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I just ask you straight up Shannon, do all behaviors that are genetically or environmentally determined deserve immunity from moral judgement? Answer me in a straightforward manner. Yes, always. No, never. or Maybe, sometimes. |
Good luck with that :-)
|
|
|
|
07/01/2010 03:04:25 PM · #4758 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I just ask you straight up Shannon, do all behaviors that are genetically or environmentally determined deserve immunity from moral judgement? Answer me in a straightforward manner. Yes, always. No, never. or Maybe, sometimes. |
The answer to this is irrelevant to the issue at hand, because, in law, the placement of the line between personal freedom and state prohibition is supposed to relate solely to the relative effect (positive or negative) of the behaviors upon the the individual and the state. The "morality" -- particularly if defined as that of some particular sect -- of the behavior is not supposed to be a major component of the decision.
True political conservatives believe in the least interference by government in people's personal lives as possible. Surely what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home should be none of the governement's business (so long as it doesn't violate other laws which apply to people generally -- i.e. murder, conspiring to rob a bank, cooking up some meth together, etc. are still off-limits).
In law, marriage is a contract between two individuals, terms of which have been defined by the state, and which grants certain privileges in exchange for the fulfillment of certain responsibilities, not including a requirement to reproduce. Since, under the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens are afforded equal treatment under the law, it really seems a simple legal proposition that it should be irrelevant to the state whether those two persons are of the same or opposite gender. All other requirements or restrictions (age, current marital status, genetic relationship, etc., etc., etc.) can be applied equally to men and women, and therefore require no restictions as to the gender of the contractees.
No church is required to "recognize" or "perform" any marriage which violates its tenets; today, for example, as a rule Orthodox Rabbis will not preside at a marriage between a Jewish male and Gentile female. Churches may be required to rent their facilities to "everyone" if it is currently made available to the public for non-church related events; remember that these organizations are being subsidized by the general public in the form of exemptions from paying income and property taxes, as any other private corporation would have to do. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 04:04:34 PM · #4759 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
When you use kleptomania, and pedophilia, as examples of an aberrant behavior, you are once again trying to impose your standards, and categorize homosexuality into something that is wrong even though socially, what two consenting adults do, by themselves, is of no consequence to anyone else. This is a major flaw in your argument. |
Yep, that'd be the straw man fallacy: introduce an extra element (in this case a trait that cause harm to others) to create a weaker position that he can attack, thereby giving the illusion that he can dispute the original position. Rather than address the actual point when called out on the glaring fallacy, this is where he exits the conversation. :-/ |
For cripes sake. If someone makes this argument:
Behavior X is governed by genetics/environment, not choice.
Behaviors not chosen should be afforded moral immunity.
Therefore, behavior X should be afforded moral immunity.
If I can give an obvious example where this is shown not to be true then the argument falls apart at the very least as an imperative. I purposely pick obvious examples to allow people to understand. That doesn't make them de facto straw men. I'm not even declaring Behavior X to be moral/immoral, but only that the argument from lack of choice is not a sound argument (although one we see all the time in this particular debate). Jeb then (properly) switches to an argument of harm, which is sounder (although one can still disagree).
Can I just ask you straight up Shannon, do all behaviors that are genetically or environmentally determined deserve immunity from moral judgement? Answer me in a straightforward manner. Yes, always. No, never. or Maybe, sometimes. |
Imagine if everyone said Yes, always and meant it. I want to live in that world.
ETA: oops miss read. fixed.
Message edited by author 2010-07-01 16:05:42. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 04:15:24 PM · #4760 |
Paul: your argument is nice, but totally tangential to what I was speaking on. I find you constantly mix up legal versus moral and in this case I was speaking to neither but rather the specifics of an argument about choice and morality.
Richard, are you for real about that? I abuse my wife because I grew up in a family of abuse. That environmental exposure link is quite strong. Free ticket? I don't think you really thought that through. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 04:18:14 PM · #4761 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Richard, are you for real about that? I abuse my wife because I grew up in a family of abuse. That environmental exposure link is quite strong. Free ticket? I don't think you really thought that through. |
Free ticket? From moral judgement yes. And yes I have thought it through. Have you? |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 04:32:21 PM · #4762 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Richard, are you for real about that? I abuse my wife because I grew up in a family of abuse. That environmental exposure link is quite strong. Free ticket? I don't think you really thought that through. |
Free ticket? From moral judgement yes. And yes I have thought it through. Have you? |
Ya, but I would arrive at a diametrically opposed conclusion. The history of abuse would help explain the continued pattern of abuse, but it would not exclude the individual from moral judgement concerning his behavior. I would not want to live in a world like you suggest at all. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 04:40:02 PM · #4763 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
do all behaviors that are genetically or environmentally determined deserve immunity from moral judgement? Answer me in a straightforward manner. Yes, always. No, never. or Maybe, sometimes. |
My answer is sometimes, and it depends on if there is real harm done by the behavior.
It seems to me there is strong scientific evidence that two previously illegal behaviors are to a large extent out of the control of the people who behave that way; Homosexuality and pedofillia. It seems that both behaviors are hardwired to a large extent, and people who are drawn to them can fight the urges, but never lose them, despite such radical attempts as chemical castration, mind altering drugs and massive societal pressure.
The difference between these two classically immoral actions is the presence of a victim. In Hellenic Athens, both behaviors were seen as normal and entered into willingly by the participants with in societal norms (there were age limits, but the younger boys were young enough to shock modern sensibilities). In modern America pedofillia is a crime because it involves a victim, a child who is used and scarred by the act. The pedofile may be unable to help himself (or herself in rare cases) but it is impossible for him to find a partner who can consent to these actions, so he creates a victim. In a homosexual relationship both parties enter into the relationship willingly.
Harm is done when a behavior is forced onto another person, then society should react to protect the victim. If society at large is uncomfortable with a behavior, but no one is harmed, then in the absence of a victim it should just deal with the fact that it find such deviant behavior vaguely iccy, and avoid brining in the blunt tool of the law into play. You are entitled to be morally offended by any behavior, be it shaving your beard, working on Sunday, eating bacon, or falling in love with a person of the same sex, just keep the law out of it. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 04:49:13 PM · #4764 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
do all behaviors that are genetically or environmentally determined deserve immunity from moral judgement? Answer me in a straightforward manner. Yes, always. No, never. or Maybe, sometimes. |
My answer is sometimes, and it depends on if there is real harm done by the behavior. |
I think this is a much more valid argument Brennan and I woulds submit that if the answer is "sometimes" then the qualifier be the point of discussion rather than the predisposition itself.
I can let it be as it seems most people have come to an understanding on this point. I'd be happy to still let Shannon reply since he seems to be one of the last bastions of non-understanding (well, Richard seems to disagree too). |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 05:14:08 PM · #4765 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The history of abuse would help explain the continued pattern of abuse, but it would not exclude the individual from moral judgement concerning his behavior. |
What does that accomplish? I rather focus on just the removal of the triggers that cause the behavior like increasing education and eliminating poverty. That would do far more to solve this problem than a wag of a finger. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 05:29:10 PM · #4766 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
do all behaviors that are genetically or environmentally determined deserve immunity from moral judgement? Answer me in a straightforward manner. Yes, always. No, never. or Maybe, sometimes. |
My answer is sometimes, and it depends on if there is real harm done by the behavior. |
I think this is a much more valid argument Brennan and I woulds submit that if the answer is "sometimes" then the qualifier be the point of discussion rather than the predisposition itself.
I can let it be as it seems most people have come to an understanding on this point. I'd be happy to still let Shannon reply since he seems to be one of the last bastions of non-understanding (well, Richard seems to disagree too). |
No I agree with what BrennanOB said. As I understood it he was saying what society should do (i.e. legal) when there exists a non-consenter (i.e. a victim). Society benefits when it protect all of its citizens. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 05:55:58 PM · #4767 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The history of abuse would help explain the continued pattern of abuse, but it would not exclude the individual from moral judgement concerning his behavior. |
What does that accomplish? I rather focus on just the removal of the triggers that cause the behavior like increasing education and eliminating poverty. That would do far more to solve this problem than a wag of a finger. |
Of course. I'm not against those either. They aren't mutually exclusive proposition. But your thinking is a bit off if you don't make any judgement on the activity. If we don't consider abuse to be wrong, why would we try to remove the triggers that cause the behavior? We do it, naturally, because we consider abuse to be morally wrong. Making such a judgement gives us the impetus to try to stop it (through both reactive means and proactive means). |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 06:09:44 PM · #4768 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The left-handed argument makes some sense. On the other hand, someone with a pathological compulsion to steal is not excused from the consequences of her actions merely because she does not choose to be like that. The stealing is still deemed wrong by society. |
Here is an interesting fact. The etymology of the word "sinister" is from the Latin: sinestra. Meaning "left-handed". Until recent times, left-handedness was associated with very negative themes. Jesus sits at god's right hand - and the catholic church for a long time therefore associated left-handedness with witchcraft and the devil. However, recently, society has begun to treat lefties as being almost normal and you don't hear too much rhetoric condemning left-handed people.
According to a Gallup report, Americans' support for the moral acceptability of homosexual relationships crossed the symbolic 50 percent threshold in 2010: //www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_15380533?nclick_check=1
At what level of popular support should organised religion switch allegiance, start preaching overriding Christian values of tolerance and commitment, start interpreting the damning passages as being secondary, allegorical, temporally isolated, mistranscribed and/or mistranslated, and start promoting gay rights?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2010 06:21:33 PM · #4769 |
"we interrupt this broadcast..."
(wanted to share something positive)
Maybe the tide IS changing |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 06:25:40 PM · #4770 |
| I hope we aren't laying the historical suspicion of left-handed people at religion's feet. It's been a nearly universal association in the history of human civilization. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 06:32:16 PM · #4771 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hope we aren't laying the historical suspicion of left-handed people at religion's feet. It's been a nearly universal association in the history of human civilization. |
Not at all - but the question is still valid. Popular culture condemned lefties, and the church condemned lefties for reasons grounded in religious texts. Now we are more tolerant of lefties and the church no longer codemns lefties as agents of the devil.
There appears to be a growing acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. At what point should organised religions reinterpret their texts and fit in with popular culture? Is there a ballpark percentage figure at which they should switch, or should they never switch regardless of popular perception?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2010 06:40:22 PM · #4772 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I hope we aren't laying the historical suspicion of left-handed people at religion's feet. It's been a nearly universal association in the history of human civilization. |
Not at all - but the question is still valid. Popular culture condemned lefties, and the church condemned lefties for reasons grounded in religious texts. Now we are more tolerant of lefties and the church no longer codemns lefties as agents of the devil.
There appears to be a growing acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual relationships. At what point should organised religions reinterpret their texts and fit in with popular culture? Is there a ballpark percentage figure at which they should switch, or should they never switch regardless of popular perception? |
I'm just not sure I am willing to agree that the church "condemned lefties for reasons grounded in religious texts". Are we all forgetting Ehud, the left-handed judge of Israel in Judges 3?
Your proper question, however, is a good one and I think it's one the church will grapple with for decades. While I disagree with Louis' adjective of "heretical", the "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase is only an attempt at a bumper-sticker slogan for what is, truly, a complex issue and one that should be given much attention and thought by the church. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 07:02:22 PM · #4773 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your proper question, however, is a good one and I think it's one the church will grapple with for decades. While I disagree with Louis' adjective of "heretical", the "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase is only an attempt at a bumper-sticker slogan for what is, truly, a complex issue and one that should be given much attention and thought by the church. |
Out of interest and on a more personal note, do you think that your views will change with society's, or will you be making comments that make your grandchildren cringe in the grand old tradition...?
I get the sense that your views have changed in the last couple of years but is this a conscious change?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2010 07:37:18 PM · #4774 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we don't consider abuse to be wrong, why would we try to remove the triggers that cause the behavior? |
I already answered that. It behooves society to fix it not because abuse is morally wrong, but because society would be better off without it (i.e. more fit to survive).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Making such a judgement gives us the impetus to try to stop it (through both reactive means and proactive means). |
If you're referring to the individual then I can't disgree more. Our judgmental society (from my view) has done nothing more than to build walls. This leads to hate and we demonize those on the other side. As a result we have the highest prison population in the world. I find it to be an ugly reflection on our society. Logic would suggest that perhaps our current ways of doing things are doing nothing more than to feed the fire rather than putting it out.
Message edited by author 2010-07-01 19:43:18. |
|
|
|
07/01/2010 07:45:44 PM · #4775 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your proper question, however, is a good one and I think it's one the church will grapple with for decades. While I disagree with Louis' adjective of "heretical", the "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase is only an attempt at a bumper-sticker slogan for what is, truly, a complex issue and one that should be given much attention and thought by the church. |
Out of interest and on a more personal note, do you think that your views will change with society's, or will you be making comments that make your grandchildren cringe in the grand old tradition...?
I get the sense that your views have changed in the last couple of years but is this a conscious change? |
What's the line from the Pearl Jam song? I change by not changing?
Only time will tell. I don't really think my position has changed that much, but maybe I'm unaware. |
|
